http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=031306E

Quote :

"McCain v. Clinton Is No Done Deal These days, it's easy to assume that John McCain and Hillary Clinton are fated to face one another in the general election for the Presidency in 2008. Each is the biggest name among potential Presidential aspirants in their respective parties. Each has wide popular appeal among a core constituency and star power among the general populace that most Presidential candidates only dream of. And each will have ready access to gobs of money with which to finance a long and arduous Presidential campaign. But while a McCain-Clinton match-up might very well take place, Presidential primaries and caucuses are known for their surprises and the possibility that each Senator might be upstaged and upended in the quest for their respective nominations should not be underestimated. In fact, Senators McCain and Clinton face two common obstacles both to their capability to be nominated, and to their chances of winning a general election. America's executive culture The last Presidential candidate to have ascended to the Oval Office from any chamber of Congress was John F. Kennedy in 1960, when he moved to the Presidency from the Senate. Since then, the American electorate has elected, in order, a sitting President of the United States (1964), a former Vice President (1968), a sitting President (1972), a former Governor (1976), a former Governor (1980), a sitting President (1984), a sitting Vice President (1988), a Governor (1992), a sitting President (1996), a Governor (2000) and a sitting President (2004). Along the way, four Senators (Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972, Dole in 1996 and Kerry in 2004) have been defeated in their quests for the Presidency as nominees of their party. What all of this would appear to indicate is that America is an executive culture and not a parliamentary one. We appreciate Governors, Vice President and incumbent Presidents — all of whom have executive experience to bring to bear in performing their duties as Leader of the Free World. In contrast, Senators and Representatives cast votes. To be sure, casting votes is an important activity and oftentimes requires no small amount of courage. But a legislator is not an executive and it is easier for an executive to make claims about leadership experience that will stick positively with the public than it is for legislators — as recent election cycles have shown. Additionally, it is very easy to distort and misrepresent a particular legislative vote that might have been taken for tactical purposes and that might not have a bearing on how the legislator really feels about the substance of a particular political issue. Executives have the luxury of not having to worry about the murkiness of tactical votes and how such votes might portray them among the populace. Both Senators McCain and Clinton will likely suffer from a perceived lack of executive experience amongst the voters and they will see a number of their votes misrepresented and distorted — among members of their own respective parties, no less. Issue identification For a Presidential candidate to succeed he/she must find an issue with which to strongly identify and rally supporters to his/her campaign. Senator McCain has such an issue; campaign finance reform. Appearing to clean up a perceived corrupt political system certainly has its advantages in terms of electoral appeal. But the danger for Senator McCain is that more and more people might view his signature legislative achievement as being nothing more than a severe diminishment of First Amendment-guaranteed rights of free expression. Indeed, the argument that campaign finance legislation is merely a crude means of silencing one's political opponents is a potent one for an American electorate already wary about privacy and speech rights. Skilled opponents of Senator McCain can take his campaign finance reform law and use it to portray the Senator as being a less-than-stalwart friend of the First Amendment. And rest assured they are already working to do just that. For Senator Clinton, the opposite problem exists. She does not yet have an issue with which she strongly identifies. Health care reform may be an old standby from her days as First Lady, but given the politically disastrous effort undertaken by the Clinton Administration to reform health care, it would be understandable if Senator Clinton chooses to distance herself from that issue somewhat, lest she remind voters of the political clumsiness she and the Clinton Administration displayed in attempting to reform healthcare. Senator Clinton has tried instead to appear to be a moderate with strong national security credentials by accepting an assignment on the Senate Armed Services Committee. But unless you are a complete political junkie, you likely have no idea that Senator Clinton is on the Armed Services Committee and claims that she is a moderate are not backed up in the public mind with specifics. Indeed, she is best known not for any identification with the issues, but rather because she was once a First Lady. That's enough to give her star power, but not enough to ground her in issues the voters care about. None of these obstacles is necessarily insurmountable and it is entirely possible that come January 2009, we might have either a President McCain or another President Clinton. But sometimes, the early buildup surrounding perceived Presidential frontrunners ends up evaporating as an unknown candidate ends up surprising the political establishment with unexpected strength. And in the respective cases of Senators McCain and Clinton, the perception of inevitability concerning their nominations can and might be derailed by the problems listed above. There is at least some suspense left in terms of the Republican and Democratic Presidential nominations, meaning that those who portray the Senators as surefire Presidential nominees should perhaps wait before trying their hands at Laphamization."

Pretty well-written article challenging the conventional wisdom about who the next President will be.

Last week I read that two recent polls of voters in California and New York found that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be able to simply assume their support--she wouldn't receive support from a majority in either state; that was enough to give me pause. It's still VERY early of course, but with the name recognition she's already achieved and the widespread perception that she's going to run in '08, one would have expected a better showing in those two bedrock states. That got me thinking.

Her easily twistable voting record in the Senate, particularly her hawkishness on Iraq, could easily be her downfall in those and other traditionally liberal states. Her lightning fast vault to the middle isn't going to fool anyone when the primary season picks up and her opponents spotlight her record. Add to that how polarizing a figure she is and you're not left with much of a swing vote for her to pick up in what will probably be another very close election. Not to mention her complete lack of executive experience that this article brings up.

Her only saving grace may be her intimidating bankroll. And, well, Bill.

Then there's John McCain. The staw poll embarassment, while funny, is admittedly only a temporary setback and ultimately meaningless. His situation is comparable to Hillary's in many respects, though. He's got similar name recognition in most circles, positions himself as a moderate, is equally a media darling, and again, he has already achieved a widespread perception that he's waiting in the wings as heir apparent to Bush.

However, he has a lengthy and twistable voting record in the Senate as well, and is seen by many of the GOP faithful to be a traitor. Not just on campaign finance reform legislation. Even for the formation of the Gang of Fourteen, and his persistent "maverick" status relative to Bush. This drastically hurts his chances of making it through the primaries. And his record as a government reform advocate could be endangered by the scandal-laden political landscape if Congress fails to meaningfully address the issues by then. Then there's the age factor people keep bringing up. Nobody likes to think of a President croaking in office, and McCain would be one fall off a campaign platform away from losing all hope of winning his primary or a general election à la Dole.

And he's without executive experience, too.

What's it all mean? I'm backing off any earlier predictions I've made about the '08 election. Hillary has a good shot at making it through the primaries unless an unforseen event encourages the moderate Democrats to turn out (i.e. they feel like electing a president in '08). I strongly question her chances of winning the Presidency, however. They'd be better served with Evan Bayh or Mark Warner, but neither is a guarantee.

McCain is probably going to be toasted in the GOP primary for a number of reasons, leaving the field wide open for a George Allen, Chuck Hagel, or a *drafted* Condoleeza Rice.

3/13/2006 9:42:11 PM

Quote :

"And he's without executive experience, too."

for what it's worth, he was a Captain (O-6) in the Navy, and served as CO of some pretty big commands.

Quote :

" unless an unforseen event encourages the moderate Democrats to turn out (i.e. they feel like electing a president in '08)."

haha

Quote :

"McCain is probably going to be toasted in the GOP primary for a number of reasons"

I'm not so sure.

3/13/2006 10:50:25 PM

Quote :

"theDuke866: for what it's worth, he was a Captain (O-6) in the Navy, and served as CO of some pretty big commands."

Bigger than Kerry's?

I know that since McCain's a Republican the service will work more in his favor than Kerry's, btw. Just askin'.

Quote :

"theDuke866: I'm not so sure."

Why? What do you feel will carry him through South Carolina? What will encourage the extremists who do most of the participating in primary elections to vote for him instead of a Frist/Santorum-ish candidate?

3/13/2006 10:54:43 PM

Quote :

"for what it's worth, he was a Captain (O-6) in the Navy, and served as CO of some pretty big commands."

so i guess now it will be wrong to criticize the effects his POW time had on his mental stability
you know, like what bush & co did to get him out of the running

ps
i hope his military record is spotless, and every story he has ever told the press stands up 100% accurately

someone register POW Veterans for Truth dot com, stat

3/13/2006 10:57:15 PM

NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND

/lee corso

3/13/2006 10:59:41 PM

^ha, i always think of that Tucker Max story when i see/hear that

where tucker is getting his car out of a tight parking spot my ramming into the car parked behind him

3/13/2006 11:02:28 PM

Quote :

"Bigger than Kerry's?"

way bigger, Kerry was an O-2

3/13/2006 11:04:17 PM

McCain and Kerry's military records aren't comparable at all. I think Kerry only served 4-5 years, getting out as a Lieutenant (O-2 or O-3, still a junior officer in either case. I'll be an O-2 in August). McCain spent more time than that in the Hanoi Hilton, and like 22-23 years altogether.

I doubt Kerry ever commanded anything more than a handful of swift boats. McCain commanded an entire squadron with dozens of jets and probably at least 1000 personnel. He was also a liason to the Senate. I don't even know what other stuff he did...in addition to being shot down (twice, maybe...can't remember), and before that, his jet was hit and destroyed by a stray rocket from another American jet in an accident on the ship once.

his father and grandfather were both 4-star Admirals (at least one was the Chief of Naval Operations...the guy in charge of the U.S. Navy. actually, i think they both were). the Vietnamese offered to release him from POW status when they found out about that (as a political move). He refused, unless they agreed to release everyone.

I think that Kerry's war hero status might be a little overblown by his supporters, but I will also be the first to say that he was most certainly unjustifiably maligned by his detractors. The truth, i believe, is somewhere in the middle, but I side more with Kerry on that one than his detractors.

that stuff notwithstanding, and looking at it strictly from what they each did in their careers professionally in terms of experience of command and such, McCain still totally eclipses Kerry. Not even close.

Quote :

"Why? What do you feel will carry him through South Carolina? What will encourage the extremists who do most of the participating in primary elections to vote for him instead of a Frist/Santorum-ish candidate?"

Well, it's certainly not a foregone conclusion (although I'll go out on a limb and say that it will be pretty close to that if he makes it through the primaries, particularly if Hillary get the Dems' nod, which I'm not so sure will happen).

I think people realize that they should've elected him in 2000. I think that he's butted heads with the rest of the GOP a little less over the last couple of years. It looks to me like he's already gearing up for a serious campaign this time.

and he doesn't have to win the primary in SC.

[Edited on March 13, 2006 at 11:23 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

[Edited on March 13, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : sadfasdf]

3/13/2006 11:22:43 PM

Quote :

"so i guess now it will be wrong to criticize the effects his POW time had on his mental stability you know, like what bush & co did to get him out of the running ps i hope his military record is spotless, and every story he has ever told the press stands up 100% accurately"

I guess it's a legitimate thing to consider, but I think you'd have a LONG, UPHILL BATTLE to convince anyone that McCain isn't mentally stable. and yeah, that was dirty, bullshit politicking against him in 2000. (and a large % of the attacks on Kerry's military record were dirty in my opinion)

also, as far as i know, he's about as spotless as you'll find. a few former POWs got pissed at him some time ago, but i can't remember what for. ummm...i think he might've been tortured into recording a propaganda film for the Vietnamese, but again, good luck trying to cast a shadow on him with that. I don't think his performance as a POW is something his opponents will want to try to use as a weakness to exploit.

3/13/2006 11:30:06 PM

wait till that shit leaks to google video or youtube

after the swift boat stuff, nothing is sacred

3/13/2006 11:33:17 PM

you're right, and it's a sad fact (that good men are unfairly, personally maligned)

but again, i think that even the American public will see the big picture there. I mean, there is some legitimate controversy surrounding Kerry record, both in theatre and as a dissenter when he returned. A lot of it is total bullshit, but a reasonable amount of it is legitimately questionable in terms of his experiences in combat and how much of his dissent (not his opinions, but his testimony, etc) was warranted.

Again, I don't think Kerry is a bad guy. Quite the opposite, actually. However, nothing about him is really strictly comparable to McCain.

3/13/2006 11:41:01 PM

but what if you found out he had a black child?

3/13/2006 11:46:40 PM

yeah, that was one of the cheaper shots i've seen

3/13/2006 11:51:39 PM

I'm not seeing how he appeals to the pariticipants in the primaries.

Where do you think his strength with them will lie?

He could seize the moment and outline a strict line on abortion (he's a pro-lifer), and it'd probably be his best bet with the extreme right, but it'd completely alienate him from the moderate line that he'd doubtlessly assume once the primaries were over--opening him to severe charges of flip-flopping from his opponent, particularly stinging for the straight talker.

Thanks for the helpful info on the difference between their records. I knew about McCain's POW stay, that he was a pilot in Vietnam, and very little beyond that.

[Edited on March 14, 2006 at 12:07 AM. Reason : ...]

3/14/2006 12:06:21 AM

Well, he has a pretty good record of fiscal conservatism, for one.

Actually, I've never fully understood why the right looks at him with mistrust/dislike, the middle thinks that he's Jesus come to Earth in Senator guise, and even the left seems to like him ok (for a Republican).

I mean, he has a history of not toeing the party line on various issues, and landing shots squarely on the chins of his GOP peers when they deserve it, but if you look at his stances, he's pretty much a right-wing Republican (not the type that's become popular in the last 10-15 years...more like a Reagan Republican, in my opinion...the type that's still a legitimate heir to Barry Goldwater). He's not a RINO. He's quite conservative fiscally, and still somewhat right of center socially (although sensibly, unlike many of his comtemporaries).

3/14/2006 12:31:03 AM

Quote :

"What do you feel will carry him through South Carolina?"

My hope -- though not necessarily my expectation -- is that Republicans will want a Republican president, and maybe even sacrifice their own nomination for it.

If the more hardline conservatives have a brain in their heads, they'll see that McCain has a much clearer shot than they do, and, as a result, they'll support him in SC -- or, at the very least, they won't use an abominable campaign of slander and racism against him.

That said, I give at best even odds to either McCain or Clinton getting on the ballot. I think McCain's age/the stupidity of the Republican party will screw him, and the Democrats' coming to their senses and deciding to actually shoot for a win will screw her. Which is a shame, because I think that between him and her, he'd win in a fucking collosal landslide.

3/14/2006 12:56:49 AM

and i can't wait to see his presidential war chest balanced with his stance on campaign finance reform

3/14/2006 1:00:12 AM

I'm a little confused. Are you saying there's a 50% chance that it ends up McCain vs. Unnamed Democrat | Clinton vs. Unnamed Republican, or a 50% chance that it ends up McCain vs. Clinton, or a 50% chance that it ends up Unnamed Democrat vs. Unnamed Republican?

BTW - I blame my reading comprehension at this hour for my confusion, not your sentence.

3/14/2006 1:03:30 AM

mark warner for president

biggie smalls for mayor

3/14/2006 1:05:36 AM

I'm saying something along the lines of:

"50/50 shot that either Hillary or McCain end up nominated, and therefore a lower chance that they both get nominated."

I would actually give a Hillary v. McCain matchup lower than 25%, though, whether or not that makes mathematical sense.

3/14/2006 1:11:43 AM

Quote :

"My hope -- though not necessarily my expectation -- is that Republicans will want a Republican president, and maybe even sacrifice their own nomination for it. If the more hardline conservatives have a brain in their heads, they'll see that McCain has a much clearer shot than they do, and, as a result, they'll support him in SC -- or, at the very least, they won't use an abominable campaign of slander and racism against him. That said, I give at best even odds to either McCain or Clinton getting on the ballot. I think McCain's age/the stupidity of the Republican party will screw him, and the Democrats' coming to their senses and deciding to actually shoot for a win will screw her. Which is a shame, because I think that between him and her, he'd win in a fucking collosal landslide."

i agree with all of this, except that i think that McCain is the man to beat as of right now. That still probably translates into something around "even odds" at this stage in the game, but that's better than the odds I'd put on anyone else right now.

3/14/2006 1:40:09 AM